I am interested in the question whether a smoking ban can be said to contravene human rights legislation.

The case is as follows. There is much recent research about the dangers of passive smoking. I have done a few calculations that demonstrate that the risk from passive smoking is neglible as reflected in the mortality statistics for the UK. This risk seems to underpin the legislation in the perception of most people.

Assuming my figures to hold water (I will supply details if anyone is interested in this thread) my feeling is that the ban contravenes rights of association in European and other human rights law. Smoking is not illegal, and smokers who want to be in company in public places now risk being in contravention of the law. The fact is that millions of UK citizens are actually social smokers, and smoking is an addictive product.

I foresee enormous difficulties for smokers in maintaining social relations, both in general and especially in groups such as people with mental health problems, former prisoners, asylum seekers who have left home in fear of their lives. Free association is not free if people are in fear of the law when they pursue lawful activities.

I find it hard to see that there is an imminent threat to public safety or order by allowing smoking.

To summarise the figures I worked out, if you take the mortality figures and compare them with the number of 'exposed' non-smokers dying from four major smoking-related conditions you get about 1.5 percent in total, and there is only a link: no proven causation. In addition, two thirds of deaths across the whole UK occur over the age of 75, including smokers, with respiratory conditions killing three-quarters and strokes four-fifths. Only lung cancer kills more than two-thirds (actually about a half) of its victims under the age of 75.

I would be interested in any opinion on this question. Thank you

Belinda

Another thing,

contrary to what the general public realise, smoking doesn't just cause lung cancer, heart disease and stroke, it affects all the systems of the body.  Maybe you should visit a vascular ward and see the patients with 40 a day habits and no legs, or try plastic surgery and visit the guys who've had their tongues removed.

Smoking can cause terrible misery and any attempt by the government to legislate to try and reduce either the amount people smoke or the number of people who start in the first place is sound policy in the eyes of most health professionals.

Firstly I apologise for assuming you were a smoker, you are right to say that it is not all smokers who are opposed to the ban. While I appreciate what you are trying to say and respect your opinion, this may be a legal discussion board but the debate on whether smoking should be banned in enclosed places not simply a legal one either.  It is multi factorial and has much of its basis in health and social policy. It is inextricably linked with health. I would not be so arrogant as to say that since I am a health professional my opinion is more important than anyone who isn't, everyone in society has a right to participate in this debate, which is why there was public consultation on the matter.  However I'm not just a health professional, I don't live in a hospital, I too go to the pub!  As I said, I used to work in a pub and it did affect my health despite having extractors in place.  I'm not saying that people wont be put off going to places that they cannot smoke.  They will.  However I still believe that this is a small price to pay for the health and environmental benefits to everyone who enters environments where people previously smoked. What of the people who have to work in smoky environments, they have no choice other than to give up their jobs.  Incidentally there is more research than you are quoting also, in any discipline there are two camps and the passive smoking debate is no different.  You quote research which says that second hand smoke is just water vapour.  There is just as much research to say that it is not.  Cigarettes are also not just lit then smoked, they burn when they are sitting and not being inhaled.  Is this smoke ok for others to breathe in?  

As far as sitting in the pub having a cigarette and a pint goes, yes I do think its a tad trivial to be covered by human rights legislation.  Go back to the reasons the ECHR and international rights treaties like it were ever in existence in the first place. What are we protecting here?  Again, no one is preventing from people congregating and having a pint.  It will simply be the case that then they cannot have a cigarette too.  

While I can see your argument and having worked in a local, know that this is all the social life some older people have and I honestly have a lot of sympathy for that, I know how isolated some of them can be, but there are also many people I know personally, including myself, who have walked out of restaurants and bars when in there for food due to people smoking beside them.  A smoky environment would absolutely stop me going into a place.  In fact there is a cafe in the west end that I and a number of other law students that I'm friendly with have stopped going to because people smoke in it and it's just not pleasant to be in.  I personally feel nauseated in a smoky environment.  Perhaps if there was more choice for non smokers who mind about smoke this wouldnt be such an issue but there really isn't at the moment. Wetherspoon pubs is about it I think if you want a drink without smoke around you.  Not a great choice.  I don't know if there is a compromise here, I haven't seen anything satisfactory but if there was I'd be all for it.

Finally, as I said before, the ban is not just about the risks of passive smoking, it's a decision about the health of smokers aswell.  

Again, I respect your views but I and a lot of people I know are really looking forward to being in a restaurant and not worrying about your meal being ruined when someone lights up beside you, feeling embarrassed to ask someone at the next table if they mind not lighting up till you've eaten your dinner, the absolute last thing I'd want would be to hassle anyone on a night out for smoking beside me but it would spoil my meal.  

I also don't think passive smoking is bad for me on the basis that its a bit of a hot potato at the moment.  I tend to base my opinions on more tangible stuff than that.

I'm sure this debate could go on and on, but the Scottish Executive obviously found the evidence compelling enough to go further with the bill, and indeed pass it as legislation.

I am not an extremist.  I clearly stated that if there was some compromise that I would be all for it.  I don't hate smokers at all!  I can see very clearly what Belinda was saying about social networks.  I think you will find that I did address the ECHR issue.  Human rights is about protecting the rights of the minority against the majority.  Smokers are in the minority, so prima facie it appears that this is a human rights issue.  I don't think it is as simple as that. I respect others opinions and I stated that.  You seem to be the only person on here who doesn't respect others opinions and dismisses them as extremist because they don't tally with yours. There will always be disagreement on this issue, anyone who is being stopped doing something which is legal by making it illegal to do it on some occasions has a right to be upset by this.  I can see that very clearly.  It is not always the case that legislation is the best way to solve a problem.  It may not be the best way in this situation.  However I don't think it is fair to try and resolve this by saying "passive smoking doesn't harm people so you lot in the majority who don't smoke can just get on with it."  There is a lot of evidence to show that it can harm people.  You have included two links to newspaper articles.  This is not evidence.  If you show me proper studies, which aren't funded by tobacco companies which show that passive smoking is not harmful then I will look at it with an open mind.  
Does anyone have suggestions for alternatives to the ban?  I'd be very interested to hear them.  I for one do not have strong feelings about smoking in pubs.  When sending in my opinion for the consultation process I stated this, I only recently realised that it was to be a ban in all enclosed spaces, I had been under the impression that it was only where food was served and was happy with this.  It is only restaurants that bother me. So again, I think the label of extremist is rather arbitrary.

Thanks for your reply.  You do make some very salient points.
 It's funny how people's perceptions are different, I sometimes feel as if everywhere allows smoking but that's obviously not the case since you have trouble finding anywhere to sit in peace, have a coffee and a cigarette. As I said before, I'm not sure what the answer is, I think there is definitely a case for having some places where people who are smokers or don't mind smoke are happy to work and that people can smoke in. A blanket ban must be a horrible situation for a smoker who is now wondering where they can go.  I still think as you do that legislation is not always the best way.  To be criminalised is quite an extreme outcome I feel.  It's a rotten situation when people are kind of segregated in this way and I'm sure a lot of the heated debate is due to the fact that smokers are feeling increasingly marginalised and indeed they are.  

However as regards human rights,  I can't really see how it would work in your favour for reasons I gave in another post.  The European Court of Human Rights also gives a fair margin of appreciation (depending on the article concerned) to member states to do what they think is right in their own country.  Of course it's only my opinion based on the little I know, I could be wrong and I'd be absolutely fascinated to see how the EctHR dealt with the issue.  


I'm actually glad I was involved in this  debate as it certainly opened my eyes a bit more to the other side of things.  You're right a lot of what I said is anecdotal, but I did read all the evidence that the Scottish Executive looked at while the bill was going through all it's stages. How do you trust research though?? On either side! It's difficult to know what is accurate, biased, whether other factors have influenced outcome.  The truth is usually somewhere in the middle isnt it? 

Thanks for your posts and I'll certainly have a look at your "dissecting the antibrains"

Gasdoc

It is funny but when I heard the ban was coming in the words 'freedom of association' came to mind almost unbidden. Every time I raised it in the first few weeks people thought I was talking about freedom to protest. But I was talking about freedom to be together on terms of our own choosing without accountability to a third party. Just be, which means being resourceful, finding things to talk about, music to play, or whatever, or watch sports or play darts. If we can't do that without looking over our shoulders for an inspector to check we are not smoking, how much more difficult will it be when actual political protest becomes necessary. This legislation cuts across every social interaction in the land, or if not all a significant majority of them.

I am a little puzzled that you felt that the human rights line is 'perverse' because I feel it is quite fundamental.

Analia, I wonder if any of your fellow students might be interested in this thread? On either side of the debate of course!

I don't remember quoting any research about cigarette smoke being water vapour. I just asserted it! But also I said it was mostly water vapour, and I don't agree with its classification as a Class A carcinogen. Likewise I am wary of your comment that you are open to research that is not funded by tobacco companies. Provided the funding is acknowledged, all research has to show sound sources, methods and results. If all this passes peer review what does it matter where the funding comes from. All research costs money and much of it is driven by quite strong competitive commercial interests. Non-profitmaking sectors of the economy like health are dependent on these for their operation. But the debate is presented by some as if it were a health v wealth issue, as if there were no money interests in health.

I always think this talk of "proof" is somewhat moot. I know that when I am forced to be in a smoky environment I feel extremely ill, and have difficulty breathing, for several days afterwards. I suppose you could argue that the two are unrelated and that I am the victim of an eery coincidence, but I seriously doubt it. Talk of smokers' rights cuts no ice with me. The right to breath surely precedes the right to indulge in a legal but morally questionable substance.

I am actually a lawyer. Top 4, before you ask. I'm sure you're very proud of passing your half course in undergraduate Evidence but it's actually not as impressive as you might think in the Real World.

It is commonly known, at least to anybody who has carried out the most elementary of research on the subject, that the link between smoking and ill health has been known since the 1950s but this evidence was suppressed by the tobacco industry and the governments they subsidised.

Of course people were aware from anecdotal evidence that smoking makes them unwell. My grandmother, a smoker, died of cancer in 1953 and there was never any doubt as to the cause of her death. I suppose the fact that people have continued to smoke since then is testament to the stupidity of humankind, and to the need for "nanny state"-style intervention.

In any event, in a right-thinking society, the burden of proof should be on the person who wishes to carry out the offensive activity in a public place. What does it matter if the effects of passive smoking are "exaggerated"? Only the most obstinate mule would argue that it has no negative effects at all. The interests of the toxic minority should always take second place.